We have seen, in Section 2.5, how the superposition principle leads to the existence of entangled states of two or more quantum systems. Such states are characterized by the existence of correlations between the systems, the form of which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by any classical theory. These have played a central role in the development of quantum theory since early in its development, starting with the famous paradox or dilemma of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). No less disturbing than the EPR dilemma is the problem of Schrödinger’s cat, an example of the apparent absurdity of following entanglement into the macroscopic world. It was Schrödinger who gave us the name entanglement; he emphasized its fundamental significance when he wrote, ‘I would call this not one but the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces the entire departure from classical thought’. The EPR dilemma represents a profound challenge to classical reasoning in that it seems to present a conflict between the ideas of the reality of physical properties and the locality imposed by the finite velocity of light. This challenge and the developments that followed have served to refine the concept of entanglement and will be described in the first section of this chapter. We start by recalling that a state of two quantum systems is entangled if its density operator cannot be written as a product of density operators for the two systems, or as a probability-weighted sum of such products. For pure states, the condition for entanglement can be stated more simply: a pure state of two quantum systems is not entangled only if the state vector can be written as a product of state vectors for the two systems. In the discipline of quantum information, entanglement is viewed as a resource to be exploited. We shall find, both here and in the subsequent chapters, that our subject owes much of its distinctive flavour to the utilization of entanglement.
We have seen, in Section 2.5, how the superposition principle leads to the existence of entangled states of two or more quantum systems. Such states are characterized by the existence of correlations between the systems, the form of which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for by any classical theory. These have played a central role in the development of quantum theory since early in its development, starting with the famous paradox or dilemma of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR). No less disturbing than the EPR dilemma is the problem of Schrödinger’s cat, an example of the apparent absurdity of following entanglement into the macroscopic world. It was Schrödinger who gave us the name entanglement; he emphasized its fundamental significance when he wrote, ‘I would call this not one but the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces the entire departure from classical thought’. The EPR dilemma represents a profound challenge to classical reasoning in that it seems to present a conflict between the ideas of the reality of physical properties and the locality imposed by the finite velocity of light. This challenge and the developments that followed have served to refine the concept of entanglement and will be described in the first section of this chapter. We start by recalling that a state of two quantum systems is entangled if its density operator cannot be written as a product of density operators for the two systems, or as a probability-weighted sum of such products. For pure states, the condition for entanglement can be stated more simply: a pure state of two quantum systems is not entangled only if the state vector can be written as a product of state vectors for the two systems. In the discipline of quantum information, entanglement is viewed as a resource to be exploited. We shall find, both here and in the subsequent chapters, that our subject owes much of its distinctive flavour to the utilization of entanglement.
How it all began In 1935, a decade after the invention of quantum theory by Heisenberg (1925) and Schrödinger (1926), three papers appeared, setting the stage for a new concept, quantum entanglement. The previous decade had already seen momentous discussions on the meaning of the new theory, for example by Niels Bohr (see his contribution to Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist in Further reading); but these new papers opened up the gates for a new, very deep philosophical debate about the nature of reality, about the role of knowledge, and about their relation. Since the 1970s, it has become possible for experimenters to observe entanglement directly in the laboratory and thus test the counter-intuitive predictions of quantum mechanics whose confirmation today is beyond reasonable doubt. Since the 1990s, the conceptual and experimental developments have led to new concepts in information technology, including such topics as quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, and quantum computation, in which entanglement plays a key role. In the first of the three papers, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) realized that, if two particles had interacted in their past, their properties will remain connected in the future in a novel way, namely, observation on one determines the quantum state of the other, no matter how far away. Their conclusion was that quantum mechanics is incomplete and they expressed their belief that a more complete theory may be found. Niels Bohr replied that the two systems may never be considered independent of each other, and observation on one changes the possible predictions on the other. Finally, Erwin Schrödinger, in the paper which also proposed his famous cat paradox, coined the term “entanglement” (in German Verschränkung ) for the new situation and he called it “not one, but the essential trait of the new theory, the one which forces a complete departure from all classical concepts.”
Introduction We will now turn to quantum entanglements and their contemporary, possibly practical, interest. Entanglements, first discussed in the E.P.R. paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, 1935) are a perplexing nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics. This was immediately and succinctly discussed by Schrödinger (1935). The long history of this apparent paradox is outlined in the wonderful book of Jammer (1974). We will not focus on the central issue of “hidden variables” and their resolution by the Bell inequalities (Bell, 1964) and the test, nor the failure, of these in experiment (see Fry, 1998). The distinctive quantum nature of entanglements has led to two quantum effects which we will discuss: quantum information teleportation (Zeilenger, 1998) and quantum computation by means of entangled states. A nice, recent, elementary introduction to the latter is in the Los Alamos reports of James and Kwiat (2002). The quantum correlations or entanglements are sensitive to environmental destruction. This was pointed out early by Zurek, who termed this “decoherence.” The loss of coherence may occur on a short time scale. Recent discussions have been given by Zurek (2002, 2003). We have already given a theoretical example early in Chapter 2. It is pertinent to discuss this here, since it is a property of opensystem quantum master equations that is a central part of our study in this book. In a sense, the decoherence of correlations has turned out to be a “practical” application of these theoretical notions. Are there remedies for unwanted decoherence? Quantum error correction is a possibility. This will be mentioned also. Entanglements: foundations Following the reading of the E.P.R. paper, Schrödinger (1935b) quickly repeated the argument from quantum theory, but more generally. He introduced the term “entanglement” to describe what he seemed to agree was a curious, if not unacceptable, property. Let us follow his point of view. Given a state ψ ( x, y ) of a composite system of particles x and y formed in their mutual interaction. ψ ( x , y ) is not a product state.
In classical mechanics, two (or more) systems that do not interact – that do not exert any kind of force on each other – are completely separated (see Sec. 1.1), i.e. experiments performed locally on one of them cannot in any way influence experiments performed locally on the other. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, admits that there can be a form of interdependence even in absence of physical interaction. This type of correlation goes under the name of entanglement (see Def. 5.1: p. 183). We already know that entanglement means non-factorizability of the state vector describing a system with at least two different degrees of freedom. In this chapter, we shall see that this may be the case also for systems that are very far away (space-like distant) from each other and we shall learn many interesting consequences of this state of affairs. Recent developments show that one may entangle even particles that have never interacted with each other. The starting point of the following analysis is necessarily represented by the pioneering paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, who inaugurated an incredible series of theoretical and experimental investigations right up to the present day that have confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics. The “irony” of this history is that Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, EPR for short, aimed to present a definitive proof of the inconsistency of quantum mechanics relative to classical physical theory. In fact, they initiated one of the most prolific fields of modern science.
Introduction The first realization that the validity of the quantum superposition principle in the Hilbert space describing a composite quantum system may give rise to fundamentally new correlations between the constituent subsystems came in the landmark 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR), where it was shown how the measurement statistics of observables in certain quantum states could not be reproduced by assigning definite wavefunctions to individual subsystems. It was in response to the EPR paper that Schrödinger, in the same year, coined the term entanglement ( Verschränkung ) to acknowledge the failure of classical intuition in describing the relationship between the “parts” and the “whole” in the quantum world: Whenever one has a complete expectation catalog – a maximum total knowledge – a ψ function – for two completely separated bodies, …then one obviously has it also for the two bodies together. But the converse is not true. The best possible knowledge of a total system does not necessarily include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing each other at all. While Bell's strengthening of the original EPR-paradox setting and the subsequent experimental verification of Bell inequalities irreversibly changed the perception of entanglement from a property of counterintuitive “spookiness” to (beyond reasonable doubt) an experimental reality, the concept and implications of entanglement continue to be associated with a host of physical, mathematical, and philosophical challenges. In particular, investigation of entanglement in both its qualitative and quantitative aspects has intensified under the impetus of quantum information science (QIS).
In Section 2.4 we learned that a composite quantum system, composed of two subsystems A and B , is associated with a tensor product space HA ? HB . Composite quantum systems have already played an important role in many instances in this text, especially in open systems and measurement models. In this chapter we dive deeper into tensor product spaces, discovering some strange implications of the quantum theory of composite quantum systems. As a result of its tensor product structure, quantum theory has embedded into it the phenomenon of entanglement , which is often seen as the foremost quantum feature. As early as in 1935 it puzzled Erwin Schrödinger, who introduced the German term Verschränkung [127] and Albert Einstein, who, together with Boris Podolski and Nathan Rosen, used the specific example of an entangled state to argue that quantum theory is incomplete [58]. In the 1960s John Bell demonstrated that the consequences of entanglement are incompatible with the Einstein– Podolsky–Rosen model of local realism [11], [12]. In recent years entanglement has been recognized as the resource for quantum information processing. Nowadays entanglement theory is a highly developed subject, and we can present only the mathematical basics. For the reader with a deeper interest in entanglement we recommend the recent reviews by Horodecki et al . [80] and Plenio et al . [118], which also cover the quantum information aspects of entanglement. To simplify our discussion we will assume that the Hilbert spaces are finite dimensional.
We always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me … It has not yet become obvious to me that there is no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there is no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem. Richard Feynman Max Born and quantum probabilities In this chapter, we will take a short break from our survey of successful applications of quantum mechanics to take a closer look at the foundations of this great edifice of modern physics. In a sense, we are now disobeying Feynman's warning about the results of the double slit experiment of chapter 1. We shall now ask Feynman's ‘forbidden’ question ‘But how can it be like that?’ Nobody disputes that quantum mechanics has been magnificently successful, enabling us to make correct quantitative calculations of atomic and nuclear effects. But there is a great divergence of opinion about the implications of quantum mechanics for the nature of matter, and indeed, of reality itself. To avoid becoming embroiled in a purely philosophical mire, we will focus on two famous paradoxes. The first of these is the ‘Einstein–Podolsky-Rosen’ paradox, named after its originators Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, and usually abbreviated by the initials ‘EPR’. The second paradox is named after ‘Schrödinger's cat’.